Nvidia's New Mobile Chip Marks The End Of Dedicated Consoles

[TehLeetHaxor]

I've talked out this before, and now the seeds are finally falling into place.

Today at CES, Nvidia officially unveiled their new mobile chip, the Tegra K1. A huge leap over any current mobile chips, Tegra K1 far surpasses the PS3 in Xbox 360 in raw power, and even edges out the Wii U. Keep in mind that this is a chip for smartphones and tablets.

365 GFLOPS of raw computational power, compared to the 360's 240 GFLOPS, the PS3's 192 GFLOPS, and the Wii U's 350 GFLOPS (not pictured).

It supports DX11 and Open GL 4.4, meaning that it theoretically has all the effects capability of the Xbox One and PS4. Things like tessellation, displacement mapping, and anti-aliasing are all possible with this chip.

It has even been revealed that Unreal Engine 4, a next-gen graphics engine originally meant only for PC, PS4, and Xbone, will be brought to Tegra K1. Keep in mind that this is a next-gen engine that not available for PS3, Xbox 360, and even Wii U. Such a game engine will be running on a mobile device in a few short months.

Do you see what's happening?

The Wii U comes out for little more than a year, and mobile has already surpassed it. The Xbone and PS4 just came out, and although mobile cannot yet match their raw power, it already supports the same graphics API and game engines. And this is just the beginning. Nvidia successor to the Tegra K1, planned to be released in early 2015, is said to be capable of approximated 800 GFLOPS. This is in the same threshold of raw power as the PS4 and Xbone.

Once the raw power is there, developers will naturally beginning making full-on ports of games for mobile. A new CoD game comes out and a non-nerfed port will be released for mobile as well. Mobile will beginning using the same APIs and game engines, meaning that porting will take little effort. They'll be no reason not to port to mobile. And then. When you can get the same gaming experience on mobile, where is the market for dedicated consoles. And remember, you can use a controller with mobile devices and hook them up to a TV.

 

[Ventus]

I'm waiting for actual games to come out before I hand my handcock money over to nVidia...so yeah. This isn't important to me until i see the games.

 

[Wolf Sage]

It'll be awkward af playing beautifully-rendered masterpieces on a small, awkward mobile screen, and before you say "you can hook it up to a television" or whatever, I think that it's too much of a hassle and kind of pointless to do so when consoles do the job just as well, if not better in some respects. Even if mobile dominates the gaming market in the foreseeable future, the console guys'll probably just adapt and come out with a mobile-based thing that out-performs the regular mobile market anyway, and there's always handhelds. Speaking in hypotheticals here, of course...

Pointless.

 

[DarkestLink]

Nah. Nintendo's never relied on power. They've been going off loyalists who want their first party titles for years now and have still been making a profit. If they made a normal console and grabbed third parties as well, their survival would be ensured.

 

[Salem]

No it won't.

 

[Clank]

I understand what you are saying, but you seem to be missing the point.
1. Heat, the worst enemy of mobile devices, try running your phone at full load for more than a few minutes, chances are it will overheat(actual load, not just clocked up), consoles/PCs on the other hand usually don't, at least not as badly.
2. Size, no matter how good of a mobile GPU you get, its full-size counterpart will always be far more powerful.
3. Power, you can only get so much (electrical)power in a phone, whereas with a console you can more or less get up to ~2000 Watts into a Console/PC.
4. Consoles are all identical, whereas no matter how hard you want them to be, there will always be many different models of mobile devices and that means many different devices that your code has to support, whereas with Consoles you only have to support one device.

I think my point is pretty clear by now, yes mobile GPUs are getting faster, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to the other half of the problem.

 

[Vaati101]

All I can say is... So what? That's literally all I have to say.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

It'll be awkward af playing beautifully-rendered masterpieces on a small, awkward mobile screen, and before you say "you can hook it up to a television" or whatever, I think that it's too much of a hassle and kind of pointless to do so when consoles do the job just as well, if not better in some respects.

I have no doubt that at some point in the future we'll see hooking a mobile device up to a TV for gaming be as simple as a press of a button. It's already happening to an extent now with devices like the Kindle Fire HD allowing wireless streaming of films to Miracast compatible devices. There's no reason why we should be confined to cables and dongles for much longer.

I have a similar response for people who have complaints like "But you can't use your phone to take/answer calls while gaming on it". These are present day limitations, not ones that we're likely to see for much longer.

1. Heat, the worst enemy of mobile devices, try running your phone at full load for more than a few minutes, chances are it will overheat(actual load, not just clocked up), consoles/PCs on the other hand usually don't, at least not as badly.
2. Size, no matter how good of a mobile GPU you get, its full-size counterpart will always be far more powerful.
3. Power, you can only get so much (electrical)power in a phone, whereas with a console you can more or less get up to ~2000 Watts into a Console/PC.
4. Consoles are all identical, whereas no matter how hard you want them to be, there will always be many different models of mobile devices and that means many different devices that your code has to support, whereas with Consoles you only have to support one device.

Points 1 and 3 I feel are a little redundant here. Similar to the above, they're not limitations we'll always face and with technologies like MRAM in the works we're already seeing a shift from the "More for less" attitude that the technology industry has taken (that being a mentality that better gadgets should consist of higher amounts of the same technology but in a smaller package) into one of revolution.

Point 2 I can understand a little more, but relies on the idea that the mobile and console market will remain at the same technological benchmark, which I disagree with. Point 4 however touches on one of my biggest rebuttals to the idea that consoles will be outdated as quickly as a single generation. There's still the consumers to convince, and when mobile gaming is still facing issues of compatibility, incredibly high outdating turnovers and an often preposterous pricing package (this relating to DLC, in-app purchases or purchased content unlocks) it's going to hard to shift the stigma. However, like all stigmas, it may simply require some adjusting time to be rid of.

 

[Mercedes]

I'm drowning in hyperbole and baseless speculation!

Mobile phones could be x20 more powerful than consoles and that would still not guarantee the death of consoles. It's fickle to even think that, especially after the insane success of the PS4 and games like Grand Theft Auto V. That's not a medium that looks to be dying anytime soon. It's about the market. People tend not to play full-length games as much on their phones as ones that can be quickly picked up and played. Perhaps phones could penetrate the market and take some share but for the same reason why PCs are struggling to be accepted in the living room space is because people want a dedicated gaming platform, and they want to relax on a sofa with a huge TV and a controller in their hands. Consumer expectations is a tough hurdle to climb.

As long as there is want there will be supply, and people want game consoles. That may change in the future but saying this is the reason that an entire medium will die is just plain laughable. Consoles won't die, they're probably going to be replaced by media centers like the Xbox One is gravitating towards, since it is basically just an entertainment system capitalising on the Xbox brand name, moreso competition to things like Apple TV than anything. But if they do die, the fact that mobiles are a bit more powerful is not going to be the sole reason why.

 

[Justac00lguy]

You're completely ignoring the main selling point for consoles, which is the fact that they're home entertainment systems. Mobile devices are... well... mobile. Maybe they could replace handhelds soon enough, but they are in a different zone to home consoles.

Handheld and mobile gaming is generally for causal gamers. The idea of mobile/handheld is that you can pick it up, play it, and put it back down again. How convenient. While consoles are meant to be integrated with your whole home set up: TV, DVD/blu ray, sound system etc. I could never fully sit down on a small screen and be dedicated to said game nor be as fully immersed. I'd rather sit down on my couch, controller in hand, at a reasonable distance from my TV and be fully into what I'm playing as well as being comfortable.

I can only see mobile gaming taking over handhelds. They can't take over the living room as they aren't true home-living entertainment systems.

 

[Clank]

Points 1 and 3 I feel are a little redundant here. Similar to the above, they're not limitations we'll always face and with technologies like MRAM in the works we're already seeing a shift from the "More for less" attitude that the technology industry has taken (that being a mentality that better gadgets should consist of higher amounts of the same technology but in a smaller package) into one of revolution.

Point 2 I can understand a little more, but relies on the idea that the mobile and console market will remain at the same technological benchmark, which I disagree with. Point 4 however touches on one of my biggest rebuttals to the idea that consoles will be outdated as quickly as a single generation. There's still the consumers to convince, and when mobile gaming is still facing issues of compatibility, incredibly high outdating turnovers and an often preposterous pricing package (this relating to DLC, in-app purchases or purchased content unlocks) it's going to hard to shift the stigma. However, like all stigmas, it may simply require some adjusting time to be rid of.

Actually 1 and 3 while related are quite different, 1 is the matter of heat, something we have yet to find a way around and likely never will(if we do then we would have some seriously nice clock speeds on all form factors) whereas 3 is a matter of how big of a battery we can make(surely with such an awesome phone you don't want to only play games at home).

So yeah, find a way around the heat issue(which there likely isn't with silicone) and all hardware speeds will grow exponentially again.

And why won't they? If I can put 1000 CUDA cores in a phone GPU, then surely I can fit 5000-10,000 in a console easily, can I not?
The idea here is consoles are bigger than phones, thus I can always pack more power into a console even if I end up using the same hardware as in the smartphone.

Also on point 4, I have a first gen Nexus 7, and there are several apps that simply don't work on it even though they work fine on older/slower hardware. There are also several apps that have to include workarounds just to work on the Nexus 7 hardware. now don't miss the point here, the Nexus 7 is one of the most popular 7-inch tablets, so if there are apps that won't work on it, then what about less common hardware?

Also on that topic perhaps you should consider how flawed the mobile drivers are? Many valid GPU calls simply crash a surprisingly large number of drivers, whereas with the consoles while I won't say everything just works(even though it should) I will however say that it is simple enough to find which ones(if any) crash and then either fix them or work around them.

Again, my point is simply this, with consoles you develop for one machine, with any other platform you have to develop/test for many and quite simply that is a hassle. Don't get me wrong, it is very possible to develop a game that works on most modern smartphones, but quite frankly it is a hassle.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

Actually 1 and 3 while related are quite different, 1 is the matter of heat, something we have yet to find a way around and likely never will(if we do then we would have some seriously nice clock speeds on all form factors) whereas 3 is a matter of how big of a battery we can make(surely with such an awesome phone you don't want to only play games at home).

Both different, yes, I'm not denying that. My point was that they are both issues which we won't always face. However, regarding the point that's bolded, you've probably only actually hurt your stance that consoles will never be knocked from the top spot.

And why won't they? If I can put 1000 CUDA cores in a phone GPU, then surely I can fit 5000-10,000 in a console easily, can I not?
The idea here is consoles are bigger than phones, thus I can always pack more power into a console even if I end up using the same hardware as in the smartphone.

I can't help but feel a whiff of déjà vu here. People where uttering incredibly similar arguments back when laptops were first taking off. That being that laptops will never outpower desktops and hence will never truly replace them. Yet here we are, 10 to 15 years down the line, when I can walk into any decent PC shop and be confronted with laptops at cheaper prices for their power than a desktop. What you can fit into a device isn't the problem, it's what people want fitting into a device. When people decided that laptops were more convenient the industry almost overnight switched it's focus into making technologies smaller so as the fit them into these smaller and slimmer devices. The same thing is happening now with tablet devices, to the point where laptops are even under threat nowadays.

What we can theoretically fit into a larger space has no impact on industry demand or economical legitimacy. You can argue numbers but the truth is the industry is led by what people want. And we're finding less and less nowadays that what people want is a big chunk of plastic covered computer sat below their TV. They'd much prefer a sleek tablet or mobile.

Also on point 4, I have a first gen Nexus 7, and there are several apps that simply don't work on it even though they work fine on older/slower hardware. There are also several apps that have to include workarounds just to work on the Nexus 7 hardware. now don't miss the point here, the Nexus 7 is one of the most popular 7-inch tablets, so if there are apps that won't work on it, then what about less common hardware?

I'm yet to experience and such problems on my tablet devices. However I agreed with you on this one so I wouldn't have thought it necessary to clarify further.

Again, my point is simply this, with consoles you develop for one machine, with any other platform you have to develop/test for many and quite simply that is a hassle. Don't get me wrong, it is very possible to develop a game that works on most modern smartphones, but quite frankly it is a hassle.

And yet the extra cost involved in testing and recoding for various other platforms would surely be negated by the preposterous start-up costs required to publish on consoles? Already we're hearing stories of indie gamers being forced out of the console market only to find their salvation in places like Apple's App Store. All it would take is a further change of perspective from their consumers and the big game companies will claw and bite to follow their flocks, a few extra debugging departments wouldn't put them off.

 

[Clank]

Both different, yes, I'm not denying that. My point was that they are both issues which we won't always face. However, regarding the point that's bolded, you've probably only actually hurt your stance that consoles will never be knocked from the top spot.

Tell you what, I will believe it when I see it, till then heat and power are two big issues that have slowed the exponential growth in computing power and are threatening Moore's Law. Quite frankly no engineers that I am aware of have even a theoretical system in place that would eliminate the issue of heat(or power)

I can't help but feel a whiff of déjà vu here. People where uttering incredibly similar arguments back when laptops were first taking off. That being that laptops will never outpower desktops and hence will never truly replace them. Yet here we are, 10 to 15 years down the line, when I can walk into any decent PC shop and be confronted with laptops at cheaper prices for their power than a desktop. What you can fit into a device isn't the problem, it's what people want fitting into a device. When people decided that laptops were more convenient the industry almost overnight switched it's focus into making technologies smaller so as the fit them into these smaller and slimmer devices. The same thing is happening now with tablet devices, to the point where laptops are even under threat nowadays.

Umm, really? Someone who is arguing this? It is quite a simple answer, people sacrificed power for portability, thus manufacturers are making those wimpy laptops in larger quantities which makes them(occasionally) cheaper than desktop counterparts made in smaller amounts.(I am not one of them, I have a desktop and I much prefer it over a laptop any day).

Tell me when you can (without heat being an issue) fit 2TB of SSD storage, two Blu-Ray drives, 4 Nvidia Titan GPUs, and an overclocked i7(or equivalent hardware for the time) in a laptop without the thing throttling due to heat(and maintaining the portability, no point in a laptop if it isn't portable).

And of course laptops are being threatened by tablets, add a Bluetooth keyboard to a tablet and you instantly have something even more portable, the point here is people buying laptops(or tablets or netbooks, etc...) want portability and are willing to sacrifice power for that.

What we can theoretically fit into a larger space has no impact on industry demand or economical legitimacy. You can argue numbers but the truth is the industry is led by what people want. And we're finding less and less nowadays that what people want is a big chunk of plastic covered computer sat below their TV. They'd much prefer a sleek tablet or mobile.

Okay, so the above applies, but I want to note something here, you are touching on looks, not power in this case.

How many people buy iDevices? Yet when all is said and done, Android devices are superior in almost every way and are far cheaper. I hypothesize that the reason people buy these iDevices is for status rather than because they care, they buy them because they look good. Quite frankly I don't really care what these people want, if that small percentage of people would rather have looks and an empty wallet want that, then I don't care, but please don't make them out to be the people that actually have any sense in the matter.

And yet the extra cost involved in testing and recoding for various other platforms would surely be negated by the preposterous start-up costs required to publish on consoles? Already we're hearing stories of indie gamers being forced out of the console market only to find their salvation in places like Apple's App Store. All it would take is a further change of perspective from their consumers and the big game companies will claw and bite to follow their flocks, a few extra debugging departments wouldn't put them off.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to develop for the Apple App store? I think the SDK is free, but it requires a decently powerful computer running OSX(say you get a Mac Pro, you would be paying out just about as much as a Wii U SKD costs.), yet you fail to mention something like the Google Play store which has a free SDK that will run on just about anything?


Look, take this however you wish, I am merely pointing out the facts, how you choose to interpret them is your choice. I cannot make you change your mind if you are convinced that the current trend is going to take over everything, I mean people will be saying that smart watch gaming is the next big thing. And yet that is also likely to fail.

There may come a day when mobile gaming replaces console/PC gaming, however using all available indicators, that day is not in the foreseeable future.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

Umm, really? Someone who is arguing this?

Not sure what you mean here.

It is quite a simple answer, people sacrificed power for portability

And this is one of the major points in this discussion. We're now looking at a stage when the PS3 and Xbox 360 will be inferior in power to a phone (note I'm not claiming they are now, nor will they immediately be with the release of this chip, but simply that the seeds have been sown). Consumers want portability, but they also want power to some extent. Up to now mobile gaming has been hindered by it's power and so the knowledge that a mobile device will outpower an only just outdated console only strengthens the idea that it could eventually replace the average families home console slot in their entertainment routine. It's already happening now but, as has been pointed out, mobile gaming as it is still has drawbacks for now.

Tell me when you can (without heat being an issue) fit 2TB of SSD storage, two Blu-Ray drives, 4 Nvidia Titan GPUs, and an overclocked i7(or equivalent hardware for the time) in a laptop without the thing throttling due to heat(and maintaining the portability, no point in a laptop if it isn't portable).

I don't see what relevance this has. The point still remains that laptops have overtaken desktops in the general market and so limitations to what you can currently fit into them simply don't stand up in Mr Joe Average's eyes. I prefer desktops too for the obvious power benefits, but people will and do sacrifice power for portability as you have already mentioned.

Just think, people are given the option to spend £300-£500 on a home console, or game on the phone they already own that's only a console generation behind power wise. This in itself won't bury the console industry under the mobile one, but it means the possibility is getting ever more close.

Regardless, the point about laptops was that now that the consumers have decided they prefer laptops to desktops (talking generally here, individual examples like me and you have no impact on what the general consumer consensus is), the technology industry has switched it's focus from pure power, to getting that power into a smaller space. One notable indication of this is how much longer it takes larger pieces of powerful kit to get outdated. If the demand wasn't there, then companies would have no incentive to continually update their mobile technologies and so we'd likely still be without smartphones today.

Okay, so the above applies, but I want to note something here, you are touching on looks, not power in this case.

My point was more about the functionality of the device. In this case the size is an issue. A last generation home console takes up a big space under their TV for functionality that will soon be matched by a mobile device. When issues like connecting their mobile to the TV are solved, why would people have any incentive (other than titles, which again isn't a fixed difference) to remain with their console? All it takes is for the majority to make up their mind contrary to consoles and the companies providing them will switch their focus too.

How many people buy iDevices? Yet when all is said and done, Android devices are superior in almost every way and are far cheaper. I hypothesize that the reason people buy these iDevices is for status rather than because they care, they buy them because they look good. Quite frankly I don't really care what these people want, if that small percentage of people would rather have looks and an empty wallet want that, then I don't care, but please don't make them out to be the people that actually have any sense in the matter.

Again, the majority of this seems only to be hurting the idea that consoles will remain above mobiles as gaming devices. Whether these people have sense or not is not a matter for debate regarding this issue as, regardless of how intelligent or otherwise they are, they are still the ones pumping money into the economy and therefore driving what direction our technology industries move in.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to develop for the Apple App store?

Evidently not as much as on the major console names. Seeing as we hear multiple stories of small-time developers being forced into the mobile market.

Look, take this however you wish, I am merely pointing out the facts, how you choose to interpret them is your choice. I cannot make you change your mind if you are convinced that the current trend is going to take over everything, I mean people will be saying that smart watch gaming is the next big thing. And yet that is also likely to fail.

If all we focused on was [what you are referring to as] facts, then laptops, smartphones and tablets shouldn't even be existing right now. Your argument boils down to the fact that consoles and PC's are physically easier to make more powerful, but that ignores economic trends, general demand and industry interest.

There may come a day when mobile gaming replaces console/PC gaming, however using all available indicators, that day is not in the foreseeable future.

I don't think mobile gaming will replace PC gaming at all. PCs are on the decline, but they're still useful and needed. As such, even if people don't buy a PC specifically for gaming there will always be the option there and so likely a market will persist. Console gaming is what I'm putting under the spotlight here (moreso home consoles, but handhelds are under fire from competition too). That being the idea of a dedicated unit for gaming in the home. Once people realize that they can accomplish as much on their already bought and useful-for-other-purposes phone or tablet, the incentive to get a console at all will diminish rapidly and so will developers motivation to produce for them.

Eventually they will become outdated and can certainly see it happening within the next 20 years if at all.

 

[Clank]

Not sure what you mean here.

People argue this like one side is right and the other is wrong, it depends on your needs, a desktop is always going to be superior in everything but portability, the only reason to get a laptop is for portability reasons.

I guess my point is this isn't really a valid argument either way.

And this is one of the major points in this discussion. We're now looking at a stage when the PS3 and Xbox 360 will be inferior in power to a phone (note I'm not claiming they are now, nor will they immediately be with the release of this chip, but simply that the seeds have been sown). Consumers want portability, but they also want power to some extent. Up to now mobile gaming has been hindered by it's power and so the knowledge that a mobile device will outpower an only just outdated console only strengthens the idea that it could eventually replace the average families home console slot in their entertainment routine. It's already happening now but, as has been pointed out, mobile gaming as it is still has drawbacks for now.

As I have said before, in terms of power it will always go something like this Gaming Desktop > Gaming Laptop or Console > Low end PC/High end mobile > Wii(U in a year or two).

So yeah, the hardware will likely always be matched in a manner similar to this scale.

I don't see what relevance this has. The point still remains that laptops have overtaken desktops in the general market and so limitations to what you can currently fit into them simply don't stand up in Mr Joe Average's eyes. I prefer desktops too for the obvious power benefits, but people will and do sacrifice power for portability as you have already mentioned.

Just think, people are given the option to spend £300-£500 on a home console, or game on the phone they already own that's only a console generation behind power wise. This in itself won't bury the console industry under the mobile one, but it means the possibility is getting ever more close.

Regardless, the point about laptops was that now that the consumers have decided they prefer laptops to desktops (talking generally here, individual examples like me and you have no impact on what the general consumer consensus is), the technology industry has switched it's focus from pure power, to getting that power into a smaller space. One notable indication of this is how much longer it takes larger pieces of powerful kit to get outdated. If the demand wasn't there, then companies would have no incentive to continually update their mobile technologies and so we'd likely still be without smartphones today.

Okay, these aren't directly related persay, but I think they are close enough;
First off, if we go by numbers, Consoles are already long in the minority, just take some of the most popular apps, the number of installs(Many are 100,000,000 - 500,000,000 installs) outnumber even all the (recent home)consoles added together(only looking at the android installs), so by that definition, consoles have already lost.

However you have to realize that quite frankly consoles(as well as PCs) have a dedicated following, sure some of the "casual" gamers might turn to mobile gaming, but as I said before many(if not most) already have. Honestly as long as consoles(and desktops) are around there will likely still be a following of people that want the best of the best(read rich people) and while they still exist, consoles will likely still.

My point was more about the functionality of the device. In this case the size is an issue. A last generation home console takes up a big space under their TV for functionality that will soon be matched by a mobile device. When issues like connecting their mobile to the TV are solved, why would people have any incentive (other than titles, which again isn't a fixed difference) to remain with their console? All it takes is for the majority to make up their mind contrary to consoles and the companies providing them will switch their focus too.

Yes, I agree, size is an issue, packing that powerful of a chip in a smartphone pretty-much guarantees that you can't get rid of all the heat that would be generated by running it even close to full blast(which is what you would have to do to actually match the PS3 power).

So yes, size is an issue, size is the same issue that makes laptops horrible for heavy gaming, as with such a compact form it is near impossible to dispose of the heat that is generated and if you can't get rid of the heat then it has to throttle the CPU and usually the GPU to keep a safe operating temperature.
It is also the reason why a desktop with the same specs is better, as desktops can usually maintain stable temperatures under full load(at least the ones I have had a chance to mess with) without throttling.

Not to mention, if they are only going to play at home, then why not have a console? Portability doesn't really seem to be an issue, and if they can afford as pricy of a phone as one that contains a high-end chip...

Again, the majority of this seems only to be hurting the idea that consoles will remain above mobiles as gaming devices. Whether these people have sense or not is not a matter for debate regarding this issue as, regardless of how intelligent or otherwise they are, they are still the ones pumping money into the economy and therefore driving what direction our technology industries move in.

My point was these are the causal gamers, the ones that have already turned... Plus as I said, smartphones are never going to be able to deliver near the power that a Console or PC can due to issue of heat, I mean at least unless you want a fan in your smartphone or something...

Evidently not as much as on the major console names. Seeing as we hear multiple stories of small-time developers being forced into the mobile market.

And how many of these small developers produce AAA games(such as something like TLoU)?

That aside, the starting price for a Wii U SDK is ~$2500(Nintendo's Dev portal) whereas the starting price for a Mac Pro is $3000. So yeah, if these guys are really stripped for cash, sure, but if they are then why aren't they developing for Android which is totally free? That's the only thing that makes this hard to believe for me...
(Also the PS Vita SDK is $99)

If all we focused on was [what you are referring to as] facts, then laptops, smartphones and tablets shouldn't even be existing right now. Your argument boils down to the fact that consoles and PC's are physically easier to make more powerful, but that ignores economic trends, general demand and industry interest.

Not at all, they have their place as portable devices, they are designed to be carried around for people like salespeople, students, relatives that require a lot of tech help, people that travel frequently, etc... However I do say that the rest of the population generally has no real reason to get a laptop unless they need an cheap entry level PC, and those are likely not gamers...
Besides I am totally for smartphone games, I just don't see them replacing consoles any time soon, crossword puzzles perhaps, but not consoles.

And let me ask this, how many serious gamers game on laptops and of the few that do, how many of those are several thousand dollar laptops?
I guess you seem to be looking at the lighter-weight gaming market which more or less already has gone to smartphones/tablets, whereas I am looking at the more in-depth gaming market which tend to play games that require the full power of the latest console(or a high-end PC).

I don't think mobile gaming will replace PC gaming at all. PCs are on the decline, but they're still useful and needed. As such, even if people don't buy a PC specifically for gaming there will always be the option there and so likely a market will persist. Console gaming is what I'm putting under the spotlight here (moreso home consoles, but handhelds are under fire from competition too). That being the idea of a dedicated unit for gaming in the home. Once people realize that they can accomplish as much on their already bought and useful-for-other-purposes phone or tablet, the incentive to get a console at all will diminish rapidly and so will developers motivation to produce for them.

Eventually they will become outdated and can certainly see it happening within the next 20 years if at all.

Yes, but the key here is they can't... The only way that would be even partially true is if we took heat out of the equation... Besides as I have said before, if you can pack x components into a smartphone(and still have issues with heat), then you can pack 5x into a console and not have heat issues.

Thus your console would theoretically have 5x better graphics than the phone, which is pretty-much where we are now.

Don't get me wrong, I think this GPU is wonderful(it also explains why they refused to support OpenGL ES 3.0 with the tegra 4), but I fail to see how this is going to replace consoles, lower the market share perhaps, but that has already been done by mobile games.

Also if people are looking for a console killer, perhaps you should start looking at something more logical like PlayStation Now, just get a Sony TV and forget the console.

But either way it seems you are pretty certain that things are going to happen this way, since I don't have a time-machine and I cannot predict what new tech will come, I cannot say what will happen for certain, I however I am pretty sure that things aren't really going to be mixed up in such a fashion, but only time will tell.

So yeah, call me up in 20 years and we can see who is right, quite frankly unless we have some serious breakthroughs, I don't doubt my position.